‘Safe Cosmetics Act’ NOT So Safe For Small Biz

The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010′ (H.R. 5786) was introduced this week by Democrat Representatives Scharkowsky (Illinois), Markey (Massachusetts) and Baldwin (Wisconsin). The full version of the draft bill for you to read is here. This draft has not yet been voted on. There is still time to have changes made.Now is the time to educate yourselves and write your lawmakers.

Bramble Berry opposes this draft legislation as written recommends that you write your Representative with a customized message opposing this legislation as it is currently written (not sure who your Rep is? Click here to find out!). Add your details; make it personal and let them know that if this bill passes as it is currently written, that your business will be affected. Here’s one example of a letter that you could write:

Dear Representative,

I am writing to express my concerns about H.R. 5786, the ‘Safe Cosmetics Act’. I make lip balms, soaps and lotions and sell them at the local Farmer’s Market. My business makes less than $5000 per year. I sell to pay for my daughter’s piano lessons and my son’s soccer camps every year. What I make augments my family’s income and helps our quality of life. I make my soaps and lotions with common ingredients that you can find in your kitchen. For example, I have a great bar of soap that I make out of four ingredients: Olive Oil, Water, Lye and skin safe fragrance. H.R. 5786 has a bunch of extra reporting requirements that would be virtually impossible for me to comply with. I’m just one woman in a kitchen. I don’t have a huge staff to help me. Plus, I often change my formulations based on the season and what my customers are asking for. Being nimble is a huge advantage for me and if I have to submit a new safety and ingredient affidavit for every product, that will take away one of my key advantages. Please don’t support this legislation. It is well-meaning but is written in such a way that I won’t be able to stay in business because I won’t be able to keep up. Estee Lauder started at her kitchen table. Please don’t take that opportunity away from me.

Sincerely,

Suzy Soaper

Suzy’s Soaps

Bramble Berry is opposed to the bill for the following reasons:

1. It is unnecessary. The cosmetic industry is a safe industry with a wide variety of choice on the marketplace for consumers.It is already illegal to manufacture unsafe cosmetics and is already illegal to not fully label ingredients or contact information on products.

2. This bill would, handicap small manufacturing business. In a time of economic uncertainty and distress for millions of Americans, this is untenable. For some families, the income from the Farmer’s Market may be what they are living on now.

3. The reporting requirements are ‘big brother.’ They ask for your annual sales, number of employees and even the names and addresses of your vendors. They even require you to log your proprietary formulas. It’s not clear what information might be kept confidential or not.

4. ‘Detectable’ trace elements must be included on labels. Since almost everything is detectable, labeling will be confusing to end consumers (even more than it is already). So, “Water” on a label would look like “Aqua, Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Silver, Zinc” (and if you live in my town, you’d also have to include caffeine, oral contraceptives and antibiotics in your water labeling requirement).

5. Trace Ingredients that are considered carcinogenic when ingested (eaten) will be unable to be used in skin care products. Ingredients that are ‘found to induce birth defect’s when ingested or inhaled will be banned as well. You will be able to eat apples but not put them in skin care products. That’s because apples contain small amounts of cyanide. Lucky for us our body can detoxify cyanide in small trace amounts. But under this law and the ‘trace elements’ portion of the proposed bill, you still wouldn’t be able to put apples into your products even though you can safely eat apples.

6. Safety Statements, ingredient listing and registration information must be listed for each and every cosmetic, soap, lotion and potion must be made up. With a small scale manufacturer who is making a few of this and a few of that, this is a paperwork nightmare. It does not allow for easy changing of recipes when formulating and trying new recipes.

7. There is no full exemption for small businesses. Small businesses often launched because of the notion that cosmetics could be made with a larger proportion of more desirable ingredients than have typically been used by traditional cosmetics manufacturersI fully believe that the backers of the bill are well-meaning and trust that this bill will have more changes before it is voted on. But it’s up to us to explain what changes need to be made to protect small business. Don’t just take my word and interpretation of the bill as gospel, read the bill for yourself hereand start the education and change process today.

Updated 8/1: There is a petition against the ‘Safe Cosmetics Act’ here. Read the petition and sign it if you agree with the statements. The official Oppose SCA site is here. Curious about how a bill becomes law? There’s a fantastic post about it here as it pertains to the ‘Safe Cosmetics Act’ in particular.

The best soap supplies on the internet are found at Bramble Berry. Click here to browse Bramble Berry.

91 Comments

A friend introduced me to the UK I’ve been really touched on.Study Design in Korea while I soap not know English, but read the Google translated upset right now, roughly translated I’m so glad to view.

At appears that Anonymous believes what they have been told. But I would ask that Anonymous takes the time to do thorough research on the topic of cosmetics.

From the FDA website: “Ingredients. If the product is sold on a retail basis to consumers, even it it is labeled “For professional use only” or words to that effect, the ingredients must appear on an information panel, in descending order of predominance. [21 CFR 701.3].”

Any cosmetic on the market that does not have all ingredients listed is breaking the already existing law.

I’ve also read each and every study associated with the negative information that has come out on parabens, sulfites and the bulk of ingredients said to be estrogen mimicers and/or endocrine disruptors.

I would be happy to talk about those individual studies should you wish to have a productive and useful dialog. The bulk of the studies I have read are either done with animals at hugely high doses with ingested material or even less realistic, in vitro in a test tube. The studies I have read that show any link between say estrogen mimicers, parabens and sulfites etc… have been with small populations (two to twelve people does not a study make) not taking into account any other factors such as environment etc…

As for your comment about ingredient labeling, yes, it is common sense good marketing to include ingredient labeling on your website so all consumers can be fully apprised of what they are purchasing. However, for small businesses, it may be hard to police each and every one of their re-sellers on the internet to ensure that their resellers are complying with the law. I’m sure there is a better way to go about getting transparency while not making small business owners be the police of the internet.

As with your last comment, thank you for your calm and level headed demeanor. It is a delight to have passionate readers such as yourself to talk complex issues out via comments.

Thank you so much for coming onto my blog to post an insightful and thoughtful comment. Unfortunately, other than fragrance oils which fall under trade secret status, you are not correct in your assertion that manufacturers are not required to list ingredients.

If you are curious about labeling laws, the FDA website on that is here:

Have you people not heard about parabens, sulfates, endocrine disruptors, etc…..? I understand that you want a solution that is suitable for small businesses, but there are loads of unsafe cosmetics out there! And frankly, if I buy from one of you on the internet, I still want to know exactly what I am getting in my product!

Thanks so much for your comment here. A-M is traveling this afternoon and she asked me to give you some suggestions. I think the best thing to do is to edit the themes in A-M’s draft in this post to share your position as a person who is considering starting a business, but may not if this bill passes as drafted.

I am a resident of your district, and I am writing to express my concerns about H.R. 5786: The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010. I have not yet started my cosmetics business, but I have begun the research necessary to launch in the near future.

I am terribly disappointed that this bill would probably foreclose any opportunities for me to own a business making safe cosmetics.

I want to make a small line of products with a small number of readily available ingredients that are already safely used in cosmetics today. It seems unnecessary to burden a tiny company like the one I want to start with all of the paperwork, filing and reporting requirements in this bill.

If I had to report to the FDA each time I changed an ingredient supplier, or each time I hired or fired anyone, or my gross sales, or listing dozens of trace elements on a product label (when the product only contained 3 or 4 natural ingredients) I would not be able to keep up. In fact, I can’t imagine how I could focus on safety and innovation if I had to instead keep up with all of the paperwork.

If I do start a business, I will be a one-woman shop, at least at first. I know from my research that I will change my formulations based on such things as the seasons and customer feedback. I also know from my research that being nimble would be a huge advantage for me, and having to submit a new safety and ingredient report for every product will take away one of my key advantages.

Please don’t support this legislation. It is well-meaning, but is written in such a way that I won’t be able to even consider starting a business.

Estee Lauder and Mary Kay both started at their kitchen tables. Please don’t take that opportunity away from me.

Thank you for making me aware of this. I signed the petition on the Care 1 petition site and am also interested in writing my representative. I have not yet begun soap and cosmetics making, but I’m planning on doing so in the very near future. (Currently in the research phase). I don’t know how I should phrase my letter to my representative because I haven’t yet started my business, and my representative is Edward Markey, one of the reps who has co-sponsored this bill! Any suggestions?

Thank you for making me aware of this. I signed the petition on the Care 1 petition site and am also interested in writing my representative. I have not yet begun soap and cosmetics making, but I’m planning on doing so in the very near future. (Currently in the research phase). I don’t know how I should phrase my letter to my representative because I haven’t yet started my business, and my representative is Edward Markey, one of the reps who has co-sponsored this bill! Any suggestions?

Thank you – and not to worry, I am confident that this bill can/will be changed to better take into account the realities of being a small business. =) We’re all working on it together and you signing the petition helps.

Don’t give up hope yet – there is so much more road to follow to get this proposed legislation to a bill. There are many more opportunities to change this and really make a difference. Sell your soap – build your business – and trust that lawmakers can understand that this bill is based on bad science.

This concerns me also. I have been in the process of trying to navigate my way through the huge amount of “red tape” here in NC pertaining to selling items at local farmer’s markets. Soap seemed to be one of the “safe” items that I was allowed to sell without a huge evasive hassle. I had wanted to sell processed food items like preserves, pickles, breads and so forth. But NO not in this state unless you submit to a home kitchen inspection, and because I have pets I can’t even hope to get a certification. So all of those items are not an option for me to sell. So, I figured I would sell soap. Now they are attacking this item also. They being “Big Brother” as the article mentions. It is becoming increasingly difficult to try to become self sufficient and for women to stay at home and earn some income. Who would have thought soap would be so regulated.

That is a good question – and I’m certain that there’s a happy medium between getting more transparency in the cosmetics industry and what is being proposed. I will do my best to answer your note and get a dialog going so that we can both gain a better understanding of how this proposed bill could be amended or changed.

Regarding the children’s toy act, the issue with children’s toys primarily had to do with imports into the country. Small, mom’n’pop manufacturers were not the problem. There were many sellers on Etsy, for example, who made children’s toys because they were trying to get rid of any possibility of toxic chemicals in their own children’s toys. They were the unwitting victims of legislation that went too broad and dug too deep. They were promised that ‘details would be worked out’ after the bill was passed but alas, those details were not worked out sufficiently to allow many of them to survive.

In a time where you can no longer depend on the economy being strong enough to give you a stable job, it was tragic to many many families to lose this part time source of income. How would you have felt if it were your grandfather, your neighbor or your pastor who was making toys in the garage and selling it on Etsy and the Farmer’s Market who was put out of business and now was in dire economic straights?

Simple safeguards for small business could have been put into that bill but they weren’t. And, that’s what I’m interested in preventing for this potential legislation.

Do you make cosmetics? If you do, you know that you’re primarily using a list of simple ingredients to do it. Home crafters often started because they want to also reduce the amount of chemicals in their products. Legislating them harshly reduces choice on the shelves, the choice to go more natural.

The trace ingredients on labels is an interesting provision. So many natural ingredients have hundreds of components in them (parsley has 204 trace ingredients within it, most essential oils have 100+ components within them) and they are detectable at such small levels that never in a million years would they reach any levels of appreciable amounts even when used daily (it’s the dose that makes the poison). By requiring trace ingredients of any detectable levels to be included, it’s opening up a huge regulatory burden for the FDA to police AND just giving a lot of money to testing companies to test for the smallest of small ingredients. I posted more about trace elements 3 days ago in a few comments down from this.

The bill as it is written would produce more regulatory burdens for cosmetic companies to comply with than we have for food. Is that common sense? That’s not a middle ground I can get behind.

Finally, about the EU, you are right; they have banned over 1000 ingredients, many of them things like pharmaceutical drugs and industrial solvents that aren’t used in cosmetics to begin with.

But, just because another country is doing it doesn’t mean that the US should automatically follow. Iran allows stoning women for a variety of offenses. I certainly don’t want that in the US. Some countries in Africa allow genital mutilation for young females; again, a law I wouldn’t be comfortable with in the US. Just because one country does it doesn’t mean we should too.

About the EU and regulation, I pulled this from the Personal Care Truth site because they have a concrete example of silliness about trace elements (calling a major component of lavender essential oil an allergen because 5 dermatitis patients had a skin reaction to it – 5 out of how many people that use personal care products?).

Linalool is one of the 26 fragrance materials listed as an allergen in the European Union. If present in a cosmetic product at over 100 ppm (0.01%) in a wash-off product or 10 ppm (0.001%) in a leave-on product, linalool must be declared on the ingredient list if sold in an EU member state. Doesn’t sound too bad, does it? The problem is, neither manufacturers nor retailers want to get sued, or branded as selling unsafe products, and most retailers will only carry cosmetics that have passed an independent safety assessment, which is almost entirely based on looking at the levels of “allergens”. So the de facto result is that very few manufacturers take the risk of having a “known allergen” in a product at over the declarable amount.Linalool is a major constituent of ho wood, ho leaf, rosewood, coriander seed, neroli, lavender, lavandin, bergamot, ylang-ylang, clary sage and petitgrain, and is found in some 200 other essential oils. But the really strange part is, linalool is not a high-risk allergen. In fact, it’s superlatively safe on the skin. Between 1969 and 2007 (38 years), a total of thirteen dermatitis patients out of the 25,164 tested, (0.05%) were allergic to linalool when patch tested, and less than this actually had allergic reactions to products containing linalool. Yes, 0.05% is more than zero, but it’s pretty close to the 0.03% reaction rate for petrolatum, the least dermally allergenic substance known to mankind. One way of looking at this is that adding linalool to a product increases risk by about 0.02%. That’s probably less than almost any other known cosmetic ingredient.So why did the EU list linalool as an allergen? Because – according to their own report – five dermatitis patients had allergic reactions to it over a five-year period on patch testing, and at the time, their criteria for listing a substance included two or more reports of allergic reaction. Incredible, but true. Considering that linalool is (or at least used to be) one of the most commonly-occurring fragrance materials, an average of one reported reaction per year, on planet earth, is about a negligible as it is possible to get.

If this Bill gets thrown out, I’m definitely moving to the US! I’m fed up with European regulations.

We have to have each and every formulation that we wish to sell safety assessed by a toxicologist so we can’t just choose what ingredients we’d like to use today. Each safety assessment costs upwards of $150. We have to keep paperwork on each and every ingredient used along with their batch numbers and where they came from. We also need to keep paperwork of each and every batch made, how it was made, any issues we had, where we sold it etc. We need to comply with labelling legislation which includes listing any of the 26 allergens which occur that are found in fragrance oils and which naturally occur in essential oils. Labels also have to show ‘open pot’ details too.

In some countries in Europe products can’t be made in your home and in others you need to have a license. In some countries you need to have Trade Standard certified weighing scales so that your product can accurately be weighed for sale. These scales alone cost over $200 and are essential.

The amount of fragrance oils available in Europe are minimal compared to the US unless you specifically ask a fragrance company to make them for you. I’d love to be able to purchase fragrance oils from the US, but as most suppliers don’t have the allergen information I can’t use them.

So you see, as a mom of two kids under 5, coping with all the paperwork is possible but I’d rather not have it. Like I said, I’m moving if it gets thrown out 🙂 Good luck!

You must have a small cosmetics business; congratulations on being self employed. I’m a huge fan of self employment =)

How many other small manufacturers like yourself are there in France? I’m curious to learn more, especially about how much time you’d estimate that you’re spending on the paperwork. What’s the site you upload the data to? I would love to see it and explore how France has made the system work.

Here in the UK we also have to abide by the EU Cosmetics Directive, so we have our formulations approved by a chartered chemist and we have to make a PIF (Product Information File) for each batch of product, as well as register with our local Trading Standards and adhere to labelling requirements.

thank you for your heads up……seems that with all the talk of supporting small business, we bath and body cottage based businesses are under seige….i have written my representative and appreciate the sample you posted…i am emailing all my soapy friends too! thanks again!!! dolores (ravenspiritsong) <*)

In france its already like this, if you want to sell, you have to declare to the official cosmetic , and, you have to depose all your receipe, and make it validate with a chimist or a doctor, you have to depose too your receipe to the antipoison center., you have to make a files with all data sheets and MSDS for your ingredients you use.ITs very difficult to make , but its more safe for the customer, its cost money, but when my customer asked questions, I have my mind quiet because all is sure, for them, for me.

Actually, in my opinion there is an epidemic of unsafe cosmetics. I was shocked to go shopping at our Community Coop for sunscreen and find that almost all of them contained ingredients I know are banned in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and other countries. They need to be removed from our products! I found two sunscreens that were “safe” and had a good talk with the personal health dept manager about them. She agrees with me but her choices are limited.

But again, perhaps the answer is to ban these unsafe ingredients instead of requiring stricter labelling.

I wonder if the reporting requirements have to do with who to contact should your ingredients be found problematic?

As for exemptions for small businesses, there are no exemptions for small businesses who make children’s products so why should there be exemptions for small cosmetics manufacturers. How does that keep Americans safe?

I understand the argument about how hard trace ingredients will be to detect and list and how cosmetics might compare to apples. But how would one go about listing all the ingredients that might affect skin otherwise?

The economica viability of small businesses is more important than consumer safety? Is that really a viable argument?

It is necessary because there are cosmetics ingredients that are banned in other countries that are not banned here. And, many consumers would like to see them banned. However, perhaps a more appropriate method would be just to lobby for banning these ingredients?

I do think there are good intentions behind this act and I am trying to value both side’s take on it but I still see that it is, so far, a matter of small businesses really not being able to afford this legislation. Is there a happy medium possible? When the children’s consumer protection act went into place last year, many small businesses went under but others continued. However, Americans can now rest easy that their child will not be chewing on BPA or lead. So, how can we make cosmetics more safe.

I don’t want to write to my reps and tell them to toss out the whole shebang. I would rather see them find a happy medium that enables safer cosmetics. That might mean some initially tough times for small manufacturers. But that is worth it, in my opinion.

Thank you very much AM for explaining. I understand better now. It does seem like it will do more harm than good. I’m not looking forward to it. I’m just starting out. Will my little business even have a chance to get off the ground before it’s forced to shut down? This is discouraging 🙁

Thank you for writing such a long comment. I appreciate your feedback and will do my best to answer. The ingredient thing is super nuanced. I’m not sure if it comes down to good intentions (carcinogens should never be in any product) coupled with a lack of formulating and chemistry experience but the bill, as I currently read it, would request an ingredient with trace elements (anything “above technically feasible detection limits”) NOT be given a “Determination of Safety.”

Since the draft legislation specifically identifies ‘individual components’ ‘above technically feasible detection limits’ as an ‘ingredient’, this means that ‘individual components’, such as di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate in citrus essential oils would (as the draft is currently written) be banned because the National Toxicology Program lists DEHP as a “reasonable anticipated human carcinogen.” According to Robert Tisserand, essential oil expert,“Cold pressed citrus oils like bergamot contain about 1 ppm (part per million) of DEHP because it leaches out of plastic tubing in the extraction process. One part per million in a citrus oil isn’t much and once that oil is incorporated into a product, the 1 ppm turns into less than 10 ppb (parts per billion). But, here’s the problem, zero tolerance on DEHP would mean no more cold processed citrus oils in any personal care products.”

Yes, I did read the Safe Cosmetics post about small business not being affected. I don’t agree. Even just looking at the first paragraph of the post, I see something that worries me. “There will be no immediate change to the ingredient allowed in cosmetics under the SCA” – it’s not immediate but it’s soon. The proposed legislation has things changing within 2 years after the bill passes.

My personal position is that the paperwork and the reporting requirements are draconian for a small business to try and meet and this is essentially making it easy for large companies to continue to dominate the industry. Would you enter an industry where you had to register all of your formulas with a government agency, report changes in staffing and tell who your vendors were? No way. You’d go to something easier – ultimately, that takes away more choice in the marketplace, leaving us with fewer small “healthy” natural companies to buy from.

Here are the specific sections I reference in my post above. I hope this helps explain why I’m concerned about the bill affecting small business. =)

#5 – The specific section that pertains to this is in Subchapter B, sec 611 Definitions:

The draft legislation, as written, defines an ingredient in many ways. A few of the ways they define it are:

‘‘(F) contaminants that may leach from container materials or form via reactions over the shelf life of a cosmetic and that may be present at levels above technically feasible detection limits;

‘‘(H) any individual component of a botanical, petroleum-derived, animal-derived, or other ingredient that the Secretary determines be considered an ingredient.

The draft legislation defines Safety Standard as a few things, but these are the ones that stand out:

‘‘(I) provides a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the cosmetic or ingredient, including impacts on vulnerable populations, taking into account possible harmful effects from low dose exposures to the cosmetic or ingredient or from additive effects, where such evidence exists; and

‘‘(II) is requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the cosmetic or ingredient; and

‘‘(B) DETERMINATION OF SAFETY.—A cosmetic or ingredient shall fail to meet the safety standard [copied above]:‘‘(i) unless the Secretary determines that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the ingredient or cosmetic, including impacts on highly exposed or vulnerable populations, taking into account, where evidence exists, possible harmful effects from—‘‘(I) low dose exposures to the cosmetic or ingredient; or‘‘(II) additive effects; or‘‘(ii) if the Secretary determines necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the cosmetic or ingredient.

‘‘(A) LIST OF INGREDIENTS THAT ARE PROHIBITED OR RESTRICTED.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, the Secretary shall issue, by regulation, a list of ingredients that are identified by the Secretary as—‘‘(i) prohibited ingredients; or‘‘(ii) restricted ingredients.

‘‘(i) USE OF AUTHORITATIVE INFORMATION.—The list under subparagraph (A) shall contain ingredients that are known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or have reproductive and developmental toxicity, based on information from the Environmental Protection Agency, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the National Toxicity Program through the National Institutes of Health, the California Environmental Protection Agency and other authoritative international, Federal, and State entities (as determined by the Secretary).

‘‘(D) PROHIBITED INGREDIENTS.—Ingredients that are listed as prohibited under subparagraph (A) shall include all ingredients that the Secretary determines are unsafe for use in cosmetics in any amount because such ingredients fail to meet the safety standard defined in section 611(5).

‘‘(E) RESTRICTED INGREDIENTS.—Ingredients that are listed as restricted under subparagraph (A) shall include all ingredients for which the Secretary determines that limits on use or concentration are necessary to satisfy the safety standard defined in section 611(5).

‘‘(F) INGREDIENTS AND COSMETICS FOUND TO INDUCE CANCER OR BIRTH DEFECTS OR HAVE REPRODUCTIVE OR DEVELOPMENTALTOXICITY.—‘‘(i) PRESUMPTION.—The Secretary shall presume that any ingredient or cosmetic that induces cancer or birth defects or has reproductive or developmental toxicity when ingested by, inhaled by, or dermally applied to a human or an animal has failed to meet the safety standard (as defined in section 611(5)).‘‘(ii) REBUTTAL.—The presumption under clause (i) may be rebutted only if the Secretary determines that the ingredients fail to meet the safety standard defined in section 611(5).

‘‘(C) CONSIDERATIONS.—In developing or updating the priority assessment list under this paragraph, the Secretary shall take into account all relevant data with respect to ingredients including whether the ingredients— ‘‘(i) react to form harmful byproducts; ‘‘(ii) are found to be present in the body through biomonitoring; ‘‘(iii) are found in drinking water or indoor or outdoor air; ‘‘(iv) are a known or suspected logical or immunological toxicant, respiratory asthmagens, or endocrine disruptor, or have other toxicological concerns; or

Short answer (running off to our retail store!) but since the law requires trace elements be considered in all the decision making and many items (rose essential oil for one) have trace components that are carcinogenic when tested in vitro at high doses, that’s where the confusion and worry come in about banning.

Yes, there is an exemption for fees. (thank you thank you thank you) There is no exemption for paperwork which would be entirely difficult for any small business to comply with.

I’ll try to do a longer post after I get back from our fun soapmaking bar =))

In regards to point #5: You stated that ingredients known to be carcinogenic when ingested would not be allowed. Apples are not known to be carcinogenic when ingested because, as you pointed out, our bodies can break down the small amount of cyanide present in them. Therefor, apples (or any other similar ingredient) would be allowed. They are not carcinogenic when ingested, so they are not considered unsafe for skin care according to the bill. Also to point #7: I was reading the bill and noticed that there is an exemption in regards to the fees for businesses making less than $1 million in annual sales. In addition, I believe there will be a clause allowing smaller businesses access to testing information from other companies to help them facilitate compliance with the ingredient safety testing clause. They address the small business concerns here http://www.safecosmetics.org/a… If there is something I am missing, please let me know. This is just how I am understanding things up to this point. I do agree with point #6 about the paperwork hassle and #3 about it being a bit ‘big brother’. The portions int he bill that point #4 is referring to are vague, so I see your point there. It says “contaminants present at levels above technically feasible detection limits” but isn’t clear on what that means.

Hi Anne-Marie,Great article, very good points. I signed the petition earlier today and am still doing research to learn everything I can. I have also passed this information on to my customers, they are smart people to like to be kept informed, with any hope they will take a few minutes to read and understand how this can affect them too. Your sample letter is great, it will help me in writing my own letter.~Erin

I agree – there’s been no epidemic of unsafe cosmetics. It’s well intended legislation that simply is too broad and overreaching. I would hate to see what happened to the poor toymakers happen to soap – well meaning legislation that simply went too far. Let’s write our legislators, sign the petition at OpposeSCA.com and stay positive and focused.

You’re right – it’s a matter of being squeaky and educating our legislators and decision makers. I am confident that no one wrote this bill to intentionally put anyone out of business and that it’s simply a matter of explaining. And, it’s not too late so let’s all write our legislators, sign the OpposeCSA petition and educate customers and vendors alike.

I just signed against this bill. What REALLY needs to be monitored are all the so called cosmetics that come in from overseas. Take a look at what’s in those products and the conditions that they are made in!I will take my lip gloss made by “Jane Doe Lip Gloss Co.” working out of her kitchen any day over the Made in China stuff.

Aw thanks. It’s a group of us, lead by Donna Maria at Indie Beauty Network, who are working to make the proposed legislation more tenable to small business. Write your legislator AND sign the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com…

Now that’s an interesting perspective – the big companies continue doing business as usual because it’s more costly to work with the cumbersome regulation (which is overly draconian and no, does not make cosmetics safer) and just pay the fines. Leaving the little guys holding the bag. That is a perspective I had not thought of. Thank you for bringing that point up.

I agree. When I read it, I was initially thankful that there were no fees for small business but then when I saw the paperwork that was required and the ‘detectable’ trace elements issue, I was disappointed. More education is needed to turn this well-meaning bill into something that works with small business.

I agree – wouldn’t that be sad if we couldn’t have our next Body Shop start from someone’s kitchen or a Burt’s Bees start from a wood fire? It was a joy to have you on the call this morning. Thank you for being part of this effort.

There is no doubt that a bill will come that reorganizes the FDA and the cosmetics industry but this is not one that small business can work with because there is no exemption for the high level of paperwork needed. I am heartened that they did take away fees for small business (thank you!) and am hopeful that with education, we can work with the Legislators on this issue.

Thank you! If they write back, can you let me know what they say? It might just be a need for education and understanding. The nuances of the bill can be difficult to understand if you’re not a formulator or manufacturing. =)

I agree – home-made products are often made *precisely* because people are trying to control the ingredients that they are putting on their body. Many people want to know how their products are made, know where the essential oil that goes into their product is harvested from etc… and you are right, the proposed legislation as it is currently written would drive up costs.

Thank you for posting! I am so glad that you are concerned about the act based on the paperwork requirements and the like. And, I’m so happy that you posted your thoughts. It’s a very common thing I hear and I’m going to spend a bunch of time boring you with some thoughts and information about that. =)

Regarding current law, currently anything that goes into beauty products has been tested, including fragrances. Fragrance Oils are tested by the Research Institute for Materials (http://www.rifm.org/).

Regarding testing, this is taken from the Personal Care Products website (they say it better than I can/do!)

“Cosmetic companies are required by law to substantiate the safety of their products before they are marketed. Companies take this responsibility for safety substantiation very seriously.

“Safety substantiation of ingredients, either by manufacturers or raw material suppliers, is based on a rigorous scientific safety process that includes studies of closely related substances, utilizing computer modeling to predict potential toxicity, in-vitro testing, and human product safety experiences.

“Safety is determined on the basis of proven principles of risk assessment. There are four main components in science-based safety assessment that are well documented by the National Academy of Sciences, the Society of Toxicology and numerous government agencies around the world. Manufacturers consider these components — hazard identification, dose response, exposure assessment and risk characterization — in their safety assessments. During the safety assessment process, companies also consider exposure from other sources over the course of a person’s lifetime.

This is taken directly from the RIFM site:

RIFM maintains the largest database on flavor and fragrance materials available worldwide, classifying more than 5000 materials. The RIFM database is available online, 24/7, by subscription. RIFM’s database also houses an online collection of Flavor/Fragrance Ingredient Data Sheets (FFIDS) from 1985-present. FFIDSs are issued to assist with compliance for U.S. OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standards and the European Commission’s Dangerous Substances Directives.

An independent Panel of Experts, internationally known dermatologists, pathologists, toxicologists, reproductive, environmental and respiratory scientists, advises RIFM on its strategic approach, reviews protocols and evaluates all scientific findings. All of the Expert Panel’s Safety Assessments are published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. The conclusions of the Expert Panel form the basis for the Standards set by the International Fragrance Association (IFRA). The IFRA Standards are available to all on the IFRA web site at http://www.ifraorg.org

Hi Anne Marie, I post often on natural and organic products and have been following the SCA. Thank you for a well written post that clearly maps out your concerns. There is one big “BUT” I would add to your post re your first point, ” It is already illegal to manufacture unsafe cosmetics and is already illegal to not fully label ingredients or contact information on products.” Current law does not require safety testing on ingredients, our products contain ingredients that have been linked to cancer and other maladies and have been BANNED in the EU. Not all ingredients are disclosed – fragrance for example, and “proprietary ingredients.”

I do see your concern with the other points.

Hopefully our legislators will be able to hammer out a bill that is an improvement over the existing lax regulation but does not cause the same kinds of problems that CSPIA caused for small biz.

Thank You Anne-Marie for that information. I make & sell small quantities of bath soap & salts to raise money for the animals we have rescued, we are a 501-3c non-profit, Arkte Spirit animals sanctuary. This affects us directly because it is how we support & care for these animals. – Carmel Severson Florida.

I thought soap did not fall into the category of cosmetics and was exempt. But anything else like lotion, lip balm, mineral makeup etc. would fall into this category. Do you know if this is true? Either way I am going to write my Representative.

I suggest really emphasizing the safety of home-made products versus the chemicals that are in commercial products. Also that there are already laws in place that regulate sufficiently, and that this just leads to more costly infrastructure which leads to higher taxes that people will not support. These people only care about getting re-elected.

Anne-Marie, You either read my mind or my facebook comment to Donna Maria, asking for some kind of pre drafted message, so that my communication to my Senators, etc, would make me sound intelligent and not just hysterical and angry. Thank you for taking the time to do this for us. United we stand! XO!

Sigh … here we go again. Thanks so much, Anne-Marie, for keeping us all in the loop. I’ve got my Representative’s contact info, and your post really helps nail down the main points of this legislation. Thanks! 🙂

Great post, Anne-Marie. I believe the bath and body industry needs to be cleaned up on some levels. But I agree with you that this proposed bill is overkill for small business and entrepreneurs starting out in their home kitchens. Ultimately, if passed, this bill could take away the beauty (pun intended) of entrepreneurship in the U.S. as we know it.

Thank you Ann-Marie for posting this information. I was informed of it just a day ago and was hoping you would pass it along. I really don’t feel it’s going to make cosmetics any safer. The reason I started making my own is because what the big companies offer is not always what’s best for our skin or our bodies. As long as the large companies have the money to pay the fines they will continue to do as they please. Plus I can’t afford a lawsuit so I have do everything possible to make sure my products are as safe as they can be. Thanks again!

What a great post, A-M. You did such a wonderful job highlighting the important nuggets of a very complex piece of proposed legislation, making clear points that everyone can follow. Thank you for the clarity and for all you do to inspire, encourage and support small business owners. We all know your focus is in the soap and cosmetics industry, but your influence expands far beyond that and I am grateful to work with and learn so much from you. (I love the graphic too — very appropriate!)

My rep is Brian Bilbray and I already wrote and sent the letter to him. It was very easy, took less than 10 minutes and I would encourage everyone of AM’s customers to write letters! Our letters will make a difference. I also added him as a Facebook friend and will post that on his page as well! Thanks AM for staying educated about this stuff and keeping us alerted! You rock! Heidi Outre Beauty Bistro

This is an excellent starting point for a lot of people who are not aware of how this bill may impact the small businesseses who make bath & body care. I am letting my customers know and i hope they can help.

Very well written! I’ll be passing this around to everyone I know that might be impacted. The thing is, an overhaul of FDA regulations would not surprise me, since they operate on older laws – but a proposed overhaul that would cost millions, possibly billions of dollars, cause the FDA to hire thousands of new people, require an absolutely massive amount of work for an Agency that is already overburdened.. it just seems absurd.

I agree that this legislation is not necessary, Anne-Marie. Is this in reaction to some sudden epidemic of “unsafe” cosmetics? It reminds me of the new CSPIA regulations that crippled the indie-toy and children’s clothing industry. Lots of people went out of business because of these over-reaching regulations that unfairly burden small businesses. Yet, foreign manufacturers, many of whom were responsible for the unsafe toys that were hitting the market in the first place, are still importing their wares. I think that private label cosmetics tend to be safer than the large-scale manufactured brands because they incorporate higher quality ingredients and rely on positive user feedback for continued sales and company growth. Smaller companies can afford to listen to what the customers need and want. I don’t want to go back to the days when only the “Good Old Boys” could afford to do business in this country. Overwrought legislation like this one kills industries and avenues of advancement for American craftspeople, artisans, and families. Let’s support our own industry and save our right to creativity and free trade!

This is an excellent post Anne-Marie! Thank you for including a mock up letter to help those who might not be sure where to start! I for one believe that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and there are enough of us out there who will be unduly affected by this legislation that our squeaks CAN become a RAWR!!

“If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito.” — Dalai Lama XIV

Disclosure

Unless stated otherwise, all images are original material and are copyrighted. If you'd like to use an image, please be a friend and credit the photo and link back to Soap Queen. Feel free to share, tweet and pin to your hearts content! =)